Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
u.s. energy information society and the center for strategic and international studies. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it is friday, december 7, 2012. the 71st anniversary on the attack of pearl harbor. reaction continues this morning over yesterday's resignation announcement of jim demint. the approach and fiscal clift deadline continues to loom over congress and the white house. that is where we want to begin. is it ok for leaders to compromise, or should they stick to their principles and would it be ok if doing so sent us over the fiscal cliff? give us a call this morning. you can also catch up with us on all of your favorite social media websites. a very good morning to you. i want to begin with the question of compromise or sticking to principle. this is a question a gallup organization asked in a recent poll. it found 62% of americans would like to see the federal government leaders compromise on an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff budget measures set to go into effect next month. more than twice the 25% who want leaders to stick to their principles. a m
for energy, is one of an innovative program that has collection bins for commercial fishermen to dispose of unwanted fishing gear. it's disposed more than 700 of obsolete dare elect gear which -- dire elect gear which has lost marketable lobster and saves up to $792 million in damages to boat propelers from direlect fishing gear. if that isn't enough, the energy from them recycles gear. it doesn't cost the fishermen anything to dispose of this gear and that's why it's such a successful program. this small federal investment results in huge cost savings. marine debris is much larger and a growing problem. with disasters in japan last year and the recent storms like sandy, cleaning up debrises requires both resources and coordination between agencies and states. while i commend the bipartisan support and leadership of my colleagues to get this bill to the president, i'm disappointed that the program's authorization has not been extended. i will continue to work for permanent re-authorization of the marine debris program because it is a critical for program development in coastal communitie
and china. we need energy, but we need to move onto clean energy. that is one of the president's priorities. he can create a whole new infrastructure that replaces the military industrial that eisenhower warned us about. host: thank you for the call. speaking along the lines of the environment and the epa. there is this -- from "to the boston globe" -- this from "the l.a. times" -- from "the gazette" in colorado -- our question for you is, what the think the president's no. 1 priority should be? just is joining us on the democrat line. caller: good morning. it was a little bit of serendipity that you read the editorial from "the new york times." i believe the first priority, our entire government should be repairing the infrastructure of the country. we have some infrastructure from the 19th century. with what just happened in new york, i really do think that our treasure and our people -- repairing the infrastructure will create jobs. we also have to begin protecting our coastal communities from the mega storms. even if we just decided right now to work against climate change or to slow do
support for the program. host: a tweet -- guest: yes and no. it actually does count energy costs and things like that. however, there is a big discussion among a lot of the advocacy groups who do not to think it truly reflects the cost increase that singers have to pay period i. when the government of the calculation, they take a large basket of items every month and a measure how much prices change. energy, housing, education, transportation, all kinds of things, health care. and there is concern that health care may be is not as big a part of that calculation as it should be, especially for older americans, because older americans may not spend much on education or spend as much on daily transportation, but they probably spend more money on health care each year that other folks do. health-care costs have traditionally gone up higher than inflation every year. so there's some concern it does not truly reflect their cost of living increase each year. host: we're talking about how social security factors into the fiscal cliff. c-span has part of our website set up specifically fo
, go ahead. caller: this social security, some rocket scientists figured out that we do not need energy that we do not need, paying for these increases for two years. now they are reviewing it and i am just sort of disappointed with our people up there. they just do not seem to understand that they are not doing their job. this crisis, everything that happened, the people are not doing their jobs. the only way to get rid of them, i am just really disappointed. host: i assume you are on medicare? caller: yes, i am. host: how much do you get each month? caller: $1,200. i am also on disability. my pension and stuff. they always bring it back to the older people. they always want to tax us for the problems that they create. host: what do you think about the idea of raising the eligibility age for medicare over a certain amount of years? caller: it depends on the operation you are in. i was a mechanic and my knees went to hack. i do not know what they do with people like me who have a job that you have sacrificed your body for. what happens then? host: this is a q and a piece from "the balti
to propose, raising the gas tax to fund more highways. i nee we we need to get to energy independence. i think that's really where we need to go. host: i want to show our viewers what they administration and then what the republicans are proposing in order to avoid sequestration, these automatic spending cuts on the domestic side. the white house says 01-year for all of sequestration and multi- year stimulus package. i think it figures that $50 billion. is that a good idea? guest: i am for deferring the sequester so we can have congress work on a multi-year budget. how that is done is a larger debate. but the big issue in the federal budget is entitlements spending. that's where the action is. that's where the money is. that's where the problem is. it is true that this portion of the budget can take some cuts. we should do it in a careful way. we should not do an indiscriminate sequestered. i agree with all that. but the budget framework, we need to take on the growing cost of medicare and medicaid and social security. those are the drivers of deficit. if we can come as part of avoiding
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6